[Pulp-dev] Repo versions with no changes
mikedep333 at redhat.com
Mon Nov 4 21:51:42 UTC 2019
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:50 PM Mike DePaulo <mikedep333 at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:39 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbouter at redhat.com> wrote:
>> tl;dr I'm +1 to making this switch.
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:51 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Currently in pulp, syncs always create repository versions regardless of
>>> whether or not any content changed. One of the tasks for 3.0 GA is to
>>> document this behavior. However, I've heard several complaints about this
>>> from users so I wonder if it's worth reconsidering.
>> I love making users happy, but the complaints didn't resonate as much
>> with me because another user with a different subjective preferences could
>> walk up and complain after we switch it. I try to listen for user
>> complaints that come with objective claims of usability.
>>> Here are some reasons against always creating repo versions:
>>> - They were meant to serve as a historical record but this information
>>> is available by looking at the tasks api
>>> - It creates additional, unnecessary versions and bumps the latest
>>> version number of the repo
>>> - If we ever have a feature to retain only the latest X repo versions,
>>> it'll be less useful since some repo versions may not have any changes
>> This last bullet I see an objective reason to make no-content-change repo
>> versions not increment. Users concerned about their cron jobs not running
>> can check the task records. Users get RepositoryVersions that always
>> include change and are therefore more meaningful (perhaps that was Bin Li's
>> objective claim). Also future users could get a repo-version retention
>> option which would be difficult to create if we don't switch this.
> From a black-box perspective, how about some sort of compromise solution?
> Like a minor version number being bumped if there is a no-change sync. Or a
> separate field like "1st identical repo version."
Whether we implement a compromise or not, this current proposal should be
>>> Any thoughts? I'd like to get this on the sprint by Wednesday so it can
>>> be changed before the dev freeze date of Nov 12.
>> +1 to making this change
>>>  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3308
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Mike DePaulo
> He / Him / His
> Service Reliability Engineer, Pulp
> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/>
> IM: mikedep333
> GPG: 51745404
He / Him / His
Service Reliability Engineer, Pulp
Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev